650

THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE.

case empowered to impose such punishment (other
than capital punishment) as shall seem to the Court
most nearly to correspond to the punishment to
which such person would have been liable in case
such crime or offence had been tried in England.
7. These cases will probably be of rare occurrence;
but it was thought desirable to embrace all possible
cases, and to make the legislation upon the subject
final and complete.
8. The usual steps should be taken to make the
provisions of this Act known in the colony under
your government.

I have, &c.,
CARNARVON.
The Officer Administering
the Government of New Zealand.

CHAPTER 27.
COURTS (COLONIAL) JURISDICTION.
An Act to regulate the Sentences imposed by Colonial
Courts where jurisdiction to try is conferred by
Imperial Acts.
[30th June, 1874.]

WHEREAS by certain Acts of Parliament jurisdiction
is conferred on Courts in Her Majesty's colonies to
try persons charged with certain crimes or offences,
and doubts have arisen as to the proper sentences to
be imposed upon conviction of such persons; and it is
expedient to remove such doubts:

Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent
Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this
present Parliament assembled, and by the authority
of the same, as follows:-

1. This Act may be cited for all purposes as "The
   Courts (Colonial) Jurisdiction Act, 1874."

2. For the purposes of this Act,-
   The term "colony" shall not include any places
   within the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man,
   or the Channel Islands, but shall include such
   territories as may for the time being be vested
   in Her Majesty by virtue of an Act of Parlia-
   ment for the Government of India, and any
   plantation, territory or settlement situate
   elsewhere within Her Majesty's dominions,
   and subject to the same local government;
   and for the purposes of this Act, all planta-
   tions, territories, and settlements under a
   central Legislature shall be deemed to be one
   colony under the same local government.

3. When, by virtue of any Act of Parliament now
   or hereafter to be passed, a person is tried in a Court
   of any colony for any crime or offence committed
   upon the high seas or elsewhere out of the
   territorial limits of such colony and of the local
   jurisdiction of such Court, or if committed within
   such local jurisdiction made punishable by that
   Act, such person shall, upon conviction, be liable to
   such punishment as might have been inflicted upon
   him if the crime or offence had been committed within
   the limits of such colony and of the local jurisdiction
   of the court, and to no other, anything in any Act to
   the contrary notwithstanding: Provided always,
   that if the crime or offence is a crime or offence not
   punishable by the law of the colony in which the trial
   takes place, the person shall, on conviction, be liable
   to such punishment (other than capital punishment)
   as shall seem to the Court most nearly to correspond
   to the punishment to which such person would have
   been liable in case such crime or offence had been
   tried in England.

(Circular.) Downing Street, 13th July, 1874.
SIR,-I have the honor to transmit to you, for your
information, copies of a letter from Sir W. Stawell,

and of a letter from the Privy Council Office, on the
subject of the Rules of Practice now existing with
reference to Appeals to Her Majesty in Council from
the Supreme Court of Victoria.

I have, &c.,
CARNARVON.
The Officer Administering
the Government of New Zealand.

Sir W. Stawell to the Secretary of State for the
Colonies.
11, King Street, St. James's,
25th June, 1874.

MY LORD, I have the honor to address you on the
effect of the rules respecting appeals to Her Majesty
in Council, with a view to your Lordship's, if you
concur in the suggestions I venture to offer, bringing
the subject under the consideration of His Lordship
the President of the Judicial Committee of Her
Majesty's Privy Council.

Those rules prescribe that a transcript of the pro-
ceedings should be forwarded by the proper officer of
the Colonial Court to the Registrar of the Privy
Council, and that after the expiration of six months
from its receipt the appeal should stand dismissed,
unless steps have been taken for its prosecution.

According to the practice which has invariably
obtained in Victoria since the establishment of a
Supreme Court there, and, as I am informed, accord-
ing also to the practice in New South Wales, the
appellant prepares this transcript and delivers it to
the proper officer, who forthwith makes a certified
copy, which he forwards to the Registrar of the Privy
Council, retaining in Court the transcript delivered.

Appellants who are so disposed remain inactive for
some time after they have established their right to
appeal, for there is no time limited within which this
transcript must be prepared.

The disproportion between the number of cases in
which leave to appeal has been granted, the pre-
liminary conditions having been performed, and those
in which the appeal is prosecuted, as well as the long
lapse of time in those instances in which the appeal
is carried out, between the completion of the right to
appeal and the prosecution of the appeal itself, tend
to show that applications are made and granted, and
either no steps for the prosecution with effect are
taken, or they are not taken so promptly as they
might be.

The Order in Council has never received any
judicial interpretation, the practice I have mentioned
having acquiesced in, so far as I am aware. The
words may perhaps be held to convey a different
meaning, but in these rules there is no express
reference to the appellant's repaying the officer the
costs of preparation.

The importance of checking any abuse of the right
to appeal is as great as that of facilitating litigants
in the exercise of that right. If the rules expressly
permitted the Officer of the Court to prepare the
transcript and recover the expenses from the ap-
pellant, the delay which now too frequently occurs
would be prevented. The time allowed, considering
the facilities of communication, and the known
practice of their Lordships not to exclude an appel-
lant who offers a sufficient explanation for his delay,
seems almost too long, but I do not suggest any
abridgment; my sole object is to prevent an abuse
of the existing right.

The rules relating to appeals in maritime cases
prescribe the issue of an inhibition after leave to
appeal has been obtained from the Appellate Court;
but there must of necessity, in cases of appeal from
Victoria, be an interval of some duration between the
delivery of the decision from which it is intended to
appeal, and the obtaining and service of this inhibi-
tion. During that interval it seems questionable